Sunday 15 December 2013 14.00 EST
First published on Sunday 15 December 2013 14.00 EST

It was never going to be an easy story to write; to convey the nuances of the complex and tragic medical case at its heart.

First reports on the weekend of 30 November and 1 December stated that an Italian woman had been forced to have a caesarean by social workers who had then taken her baby into care. It was suggested that the action had been taken as a result of "panic attacks" suffered by the woman, who had not been taking the medication she had been prescribed for a pre-existing bipolar condition.

However a different picture emerged late on 2 December, with a statement from Essex county council. The woman had been detained under section 3 of the Mental Health Act on 13 June 2012 and it was the Mid Essex NHS trust – not social workers – that applied to the court of protection on 23 August 2012 for permission to carry out a caesarean section on her.

As we explained in a subsequent correction published online on 4 December and in print on the 5 December, Essex county council's social services applied for an interim care order for the child on 24 August.

Further important background information to the decisions taken emerged on 4 December when Mr Justice Mostyn, who heard the application in the court of protection from the health trust, authorised a verbatim transcript of the private proceedings 15 months ago. This was released on 4 December 2013.

In his judgment he said: "The problem here is that as the mother has had two children by caesarean section before, it is the clear obstetric advice ... and, specifically in this case, that she should have an elective planned caesarean in order to avoid not only risks for the child but to herself of a ruptured womb."

During the proceedings Mr Justice Mostyn heard psychiatric evidence that a caesarean was "in her best interests, from a mental health point of view". He also said that he was satisfied that the woman, referred to as AA throughout the proceedings, "lacks capacity under the Mental Capacity Act", ie she is not in a position to give or withhold her consent, therefore he also authorised the use of reasonable restraint in order to achieve that operation safely and successfully.

Dr Evan Harris, as well as being a member of the Hacked Off group, is a long-standing member of the BMA's medical ethics committee. He has made several complaints to the Guardian regarding our coverage of the case – a letter from him was published on 9 December.

He objects to the use of the phrase forced caesarean and says it should be in quotation marks at the very least, because the woman is deemed incapable of giving or withholding her consent in law.

Anyone who reads the transcript of the proceedings in the court of protection, which in general is trying to open up its proceedings more fully to the press, would recognise that a sensitive process had gone on before orders – or permissions, as Harris would prefer – were granted. It is an extraordinarily difficult area of the law.

In an interview with an Italian newspaper, the woman, whose two other children were taken into care, is reported as saying that she was made to have a caesarean, did not give permission for her child to be adopted and wanted her back.

However her medical condition is framed by the law, she has the right for her voice to be heard.

The issue of whether the words forced caesarean should be in quotes is not a matter of accuracy. Once again, recognising that she is legally incapable of giving or withholding consent does not negate her expressed feelings that she did not wish it.

However, I agree that the use of quotation marks would be fair. There is a danger that the use of the term forced caesarean without quotation marks may add to the idea that decisions taken were not in her best interest – the evidence suggests otherwise.